RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
Craig Mazerolle, Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:
24-007959/AABS
Case Name:
Harjinder Singh Bhambra v. Economical Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant:
Mobina Khan, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Yuliya Yarema, Paralegal
OVERVIEW
1On March 19, 2026, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision released February 27, 2026 (“decision”).
2Stemming from an accident on March 9, 2023 and a request for benefits made pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (the “Schedule”), the parties participated in a written hearing. In the decision, the Tribunal found the applicant was not removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (“MIG”), nor was he entitled to one of the two treatment plans for chiropractic services (dated June 27, 2024). The Tribunal did find the applicant was entitled to payment, with interest, of the other treatment plan (dated December 5, 2023), pursuant to s. 38(11) of the Schedule. Finally, the Tribunal denied the applicant’s request for an award.
3The grounds for a request for reconsideration are found in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (“Rules”). To grant a request for reconsideration, the Tribunal must be satisfied that one or more of the following criteria are met:
a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or committed a material breach of procedural fairness;
b) The Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made; or
c) There is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.
4The applicant relies on Rule 18.2(b) to support his request. He is asking the Tribunal to cancel the decision and then find he is removed from the MIG and entitled to the treatment plans.
5The respondent asks the Tribunal to dismiss the request for reconsideration.
RESULT
6The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
7The test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 involves a high threshold, and the requesting party must show how or why the decision falls into one of the categories in Rule 18.2.
8The applicant raises several alleged errors with the decision, but, as a preliminary comment, I find these grounds are all requests to have the Tribunal re-weigh the parties’ evidence. The reconsideration process is not an opportunity for a party to re-litigate its position where it disagrees with the decision, nor is it a chance to challenge the weight assigned to the evidence. Rather, to engage Rule 18.2(b), a party must show that there was not only a factual or legal error in the analysis, but they must further demonstrate that this error would likely have impacted the outcome. By challenging the weight assigned to certain parts of the evidentiary record, I do not find the applicant has met the test for Rule 18.2(b).
9Starting with the assessment of his medical evidence, the applicant claims the Tribunal did not “fully or properly” assess certain aspects of the evidence when it considered his request for removal from the MIG. Most notably, while the Tribunal “acknowledged” there was diagnostic imaging showing a partial tear, the applicant claims it did not properly assess this objective evidence within the broader documentary record, namely, the clinical records and treatment plans that detailed his functional limitations:
The imaging findings demonstrate structural pathology which, when considered together with the Applicant’s clinical presentation and ongoing symptoms, support a conclusion that the impairments extend beyond simple soft-tissue injuries. It is submitted that the Tribunal did not adequately consider the combined effect of these objective findings in determining whether the Applicant’s impairments fall outside the Minor Injury Guideline.
10This diagnostic imaging was addressed at paragraph 16 of the decision:
I find that the ultrasound of the applicant’s left shoulder, dated March 15, 2023, revealed partial tear of the supraspinatus with bicipital tenosynovitis. I also find that the ultrasound of the applicant’s right hip, dated March 15, 2023, revealed greater trochanteric bursitis. The applicant has not directed me to evidence or medical opinion that supports that these findings are non-minor impairments.
11According to the definition of a “sprain” contained in s. 3(1) of the Schedule, a partial tear is considered a “minor injury” for the purposes of the MIG. As such, I see no error in this part of the decision.
12Then, while the applicant may claim that more focus should have been placed on the interaction between this imaging and the other evidence, I note that there does not appear to have been an explicit argument in his written hearing submissions that connected this tear to other medical evidence. Parties are expected to put their best foot forward during the hearing, and new arguments will generally not be considered on reconsideration.
13Additionally, this complaint is a dispute with the Tribunal’s weighing of the evidence. Adjudicators are empowered to consider different aspects of the overall evidentiary record when assessing the relative merits of a party’s case. Unless the party requesting reconsideration can show that some aspect of this analysis is legally impermissible, or that a finding is factually incorrect, these evidentiary assessments will not be disrupted on reconsideration.
14The applicant also claims that the Tribunal did not “meaningfully engage” with his age and the evidence of his psychological symptomology. Once again, I find this submission is an attempt to challenge the weight assigned by the Tribunal. Not only was there a discussion of the applicant’s alleged psychological impairments at paragraphs 18 – 20, but there is a reference to his age at paragraph 22:
Although the applicant didn’t specifically submit that he should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain which limits his functionality, he argued that he suffers from persistent symptoms “such as ongoing issues, e.g. chronic pain, his age, limited range of motion.” Therefore, and keeping in mind the consumer protection mandate of the Schedule, I have considered whether the applicant should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain with functional limitations.
15Though the applicant may claim that more attention should have been paid to these aspects of his case, this submission is another request to have the Tribunal re-weigh the evidence.
16Finally, the applicant submits that “the Tribunal’s analysis placed significant emphasis on the characterization of the evidence, rather than undertaking a broader and contextual assessment of the medical record as a whole”. According to the applicant, this broader analysis would have led the Tribunal to conclude that he should be removed from the MIG. I am not clear on what the applicant is specifically referring to by “the characterization of the evidence”, but this ground appears to be another request to re-weigh the evidence from the hearing. As such, I am not satisfied that he has shown that this alleged error triggers Rule 18.2(b).
17Turning to the treatment plan that was found payable under s. 38(11), the applicant argues that “the Tribunal did not fully consider how this finding interacts with the broader issue of whether the Applicant’s impairments fall outside the MIG.”
18In the decision, the Tribunal granted the applicant payment of this plan based on its finding that the respondent did not provide compliant reasons for the denial. I do not find the applicant has adequately explained how a non-compliant denial would have had any impact on the outcome of the MIG. Put another way, the applicant had the onus to show that his injuries merited removal from the MIG, and I am not satisfied that he has adequately explained why a deficient notice from the respondent would have helped him to meet this onus.
19In a similar vein, the applicant points to a typo in paragraph 37 of the decision where the Tribunal incorrectly listed the date of a treatment plan as “December 5, 2026”. The applicant suggests this error shows “certain aspects of the evidentiary record may not have been addressed with complete precision”.
20I accept that this date is a typo. However, there is no compelling explanation for why correcting this error would likely have impacted the outcome. Instead, the applicant has highlighted a misstated date to challenge the comprehensiveness of the Tribunal’s evidentiary review, and I do not find this unsupported suggestion meets the threshold needed to engage Rule 18.2(b).
21Taken together, I find the applicant has not established any error that meets the standard of Rule 18.2(b).
CONCLUSION & ORDER
22The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Craig Mazerolle
Vice-Chair
Released: May 4, 2026